IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.

in

I. Case Reference

Case Citation : (2023) ibclaw.in 962 HC

Sri Venkateswara Service Station v. India Oil Corporation Ltd. and
Case Name :
Anr.
Appeal No. : W.P. No. 12345 of 2011 and W.P. No. 29128 of 2012
Judgment Date : 29-Nov-23
Court/Bench : High Court of Telangana
Present for Petitioner(s) : Mr T.Praveen Kumar, Mr Ponnam Ashok Goud
Present for Respondent(s) : Mr Deepak Bhattacharjee
Coram : Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda
Original Judgment : Download

II. Full text of the judgment

COMMON ORDER:

Since the parties in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same in the two writ petitions i.e.
W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012, are disposed off through a common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel Mr. T.Praveen Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in
W.P.No.12345 of 2011, Mr Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P.No.29128 of 2012 and learned senior counsel Mr. Deepak Bhaatacharjee appearing
on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012.

3. The prayer sought for by the Petitioner in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 is as under :

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not
restoring the retail dealership of the petitioners situated at Kompally and Madhapur,
Rangareddy District, in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the arbitration award Ref.
No.DBD/ARB/SS, dated 19-03-2010 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of
the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent corporation to restore the said
dealership.”

4. The prayer sought for by the Petitioner in W.P.No.29128 of 2012 is as under :

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order Ref. No.SDO/RO/2022, dated 21.07.2011
including termination order dated 06.01.2005, passed by the respondents rejecting to restore
the dealership for the retail outlets of the petitioner situated at Kompally and Madhapur,
Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and non-application of mind, and set
aside the said orders, and consequently direct the respondents to restore the dealership for
the retail outlets of the petitioner situated at Kompally, Ranga Reddy District with HSD facility
and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District with MS facility.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

5. Paras 5, 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents in W.P.No.12345/2011 reads

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 1 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

as under :

5. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner thereafter invoked the arbitration clause in the
dealership agreement and Sri B.M.Bansal, Director (Marketing) was appointed as a sole
arbitrator by the respondent, who entered into reference and conducted the arbitration
proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The sole arbitrator passed an award
on 19.03.2010 holding that the termination is bad. However, the following ration laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amritsar Gas Vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in 1999(1)
SCC 533 held that the petitioner will not be entitled for restoration of dealership but shall be
entitled for compensation in terms of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. After the
award was passed, the legal advise was sought and a clear advise was given stating that the
petitioner will be entitled to only claim. compensation and not restoration of dealership as per
the award.

6. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner instead of seeking compensation, under the due
process of law, addressed a letter on 05.05.2010 to Chairman of the corporation to revoke the
termination. The request was not accepted but the compensation was calculated by the
respondent corporation to abide by the award passed by the sole arbitrator and a sum of
Rs.3,21,370/- was paid under cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner. Unfortunately, the
petitioner returned the cheque.

7. That, the petitioner did not choose to question the arbitration award under the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the award has become final. The respondent
corporation has implemented the award in its true force and hence the petitioner is not
entitled to seek any relief beyond the scope of the award after invoking the arbitration clause
and after participating in the arbitration proceedings and after the award is passed, giving due
regards to the question of facts and law involved in the case.

6) The interim orders of the Court dt. 27.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.12345/2011 which are in force
as on date read as under :

“Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for Indian Oil Corporation, takes notices
for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter affidavit.

Post on 20.06.2011

Meanwhile, the respondents shall not allot the retail dealership relating to Kompally and
Madhapur retail outlets to third parties.”

7. Paras 7, 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents in W.P.No.29128/2012 read
as follows :

“7. That, the petitioner did not choose to question the arbitration award under the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the award has become final. The respondent
corporation has implemented the award in its true force and hence the petitioner is not
entitled to seek any relief beyond the scope of the award after invoking the arbitration clause
and after participating in the arbitration proceedings and after the award is passed, giving due
regards to the question of facts and law involved in the case.

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 2 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

10. It is humbly submitted that as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No
12345/2011, the case of the petitioner was again re- appreciated and the representation was
accordingly disposed of on 21.07.2011. It was made clear that the petitioner did not choose to
question the award under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the award has
become final. In terms of the award passed by the arbitrator, the Respondent issued a cheque
for Rs.3,21,370/-. The petitioner was informed that the request for restoration of dealership is
not possible and the compensation is the appropriate remedy in terms of Section 14(1)(c) of
the Specific Relief Act. There was no illegality committed in disposing the representation on
21.07.2011 by the Corporation. The award has become final and is binding on both the parties.
The petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as prayed for.

8. The Case of the Petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the Affidavit filed in support of
the present two Writ Petitions, is as under :

a) The Petitioner herein in both the writ petitions W.P.Nos.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of
2012 is M/s. Venkateswara Service Station, situated at 1-52/A, Mahdapur, Ranga Reddy
District. The Petitioner service station was reorganized under Dealership Agreement dated
05.05.1998 whereby the original dealer Mr. M.Chandraiah, was permitted to induct
Petitioner’s daughter Smt. G.Padmavathi as a Partner in the dealership business. On 17 and
18th April 2004, when the Petitioner was not present in the retail outlet the Respondent
Corporation Officials who were passing by the retail outlet at Madhapur, found a tanker truck
bearing Registration No.AP16T9378, entering the retail outlet premises. The contention of the
said officials was that the said tanker was decanting some unknown product into the
underground tanks in the said outlet. But the plea of the Petitioner is that the said tanker
truck came to the Petitioner’s retail outlet to fillup fuel but not for unloading any material into
the underground tank. On a wrong apprehension the retail outlet was sealed and sales of all
the products were suspended. A show cause notice dated 27.04.2004 was issued by the
Respondent Corporation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the
Petitioner. Challenging the validity of the said show cause notice dated 27.04.2004 Petitioner
filed W.P.No.8944 of 2004 before this Court and the Court by orders dated 01.07.2004
directed the Respondent Corporation to continue to sell motor spirit at the retail outlet and the
Petitioner was granted 3 weeks time for submission of explanation. Accordingly the Petitioner
had submitted explanation denying the charges. Without considering the explanation of the
Petitioner in a proper perspective the Respondent Corporation had passed orders on
06.01.2005 terminating the dealership of the retail outlet on the ground that the allegations
made against the Petitioner are established.

b) It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Corporation appointed one of the
senior officer Mr. B.M. Bansal, Director (R&D) and Member of the Board as the Sole Arbitrator
to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and the Sole Arbitrator on 19.03.2010 after
hearing all the concerned passed the Award Ref.No.DBD/ARB/VSS, dt. 19.03.2010 and issue
No.1 on the point “whether the termination letter by the Respondents to the claimant
dealership of HSD facility located on Corporation owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy
District and MS (Petrol) facility located at Madhapur in Ranga Reddy District is legal and
valid, if so to what extent ? The Arbitrator clearly held on issue No.1 that the termination by
the Respondent of the claimants dealership of HSD (Diesel) facility located on Corporation

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy District and MS (petrol) facility located at Madhapur
in Ranga Reddy District as illegal and invalid and allowed issue No.1 in favour of the claimant
and against the Respondents. Even on the 2nd issue namely “whether the claimant is entitled
to seek restoration of dealership agreement dt. 05.05.1998 in respect of HSD facility located
on the Corporation owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy District and MDS facility located
at Madhapur in Ranga Reddy District also the learned Arbitrator held in favour of the
claimant/petitioner and against the Respondent.

c) It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents having accepted the said Award
and having not challenged the Award in any forum surprisingly did not implement the said
Award. Taking into consideration the observation made in the Award of the Arbitrator dated
19.03.2010 which said owning to the termination being unwarranted and invalid I leave the
claimant to approach the appropriate authority as deemed fit for the relief, and in pursuance
to the said directions the Petitioner approached the Respondents with representations dated
05.05.2010, 10.7.2010, 06.08.2010, 10.03.2011 seeking restoration of dealership and when
there was no response the Petitioner approached the Court by filing W.P.No.12345 of 2011
declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not restoring the retail dealership of
the Petitioners situated at Kompally and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the
Petitioner pursuant to the Arbitration Award Ref.No.DBD/ARB /VSS, dt. 19.03.2010 as
arbitrary and inviolation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to
direct the Respondent to restore the said dealership to the Petitioner herein. Taking into
consideration of the interim order of the Court dt. 20.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.12345 of 2011
directing the Respondents to consider and pass the necessary orders on the representations
dated 05.05.2010, 10.07.2010 and 06.08.2010 of the Petitioner seeking to restore the
dealership of the Petitioner in pursuance of award dated 19.03.2010 within four weeks from
the date of receipt of the order from this Honourable court pending WP No.12345 of 2011 on
the file of the High Court, the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation issued the impugned
proceedings dated 21.07.2011 which rejected Petitioner’s request for restoration of dealership
observing that it will not be in public interest to restore the dealership though the learned
Arbitrator held that the termination is bad in the Award dated 19.03.2010 vide Ref.No.DBD/
ARB/VSS. Challenging the said impugned order dated 21.07.2011 vide Ref.No.SDO/RO/2022
including the termination order dt. 06.01.2005 passed by the Respondent rejecting to restore
the dealership for the retail outlets of the Petitioner situated at Kompally and Madhapur,
Ranga Reddy District, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.29128 of 2012.

9. The learned counsel Mr. T.S. Praveen Kumar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner puts forth the
following submissions :

i. The Petitioner is entitled to seek restoration of dealership agreement dated 05.05.1998 in

view of the categorical findings in favour of the Petitioner at paras No.16 & 17 of the Award
dated 19.03.2010.

ii. The observations at para 18 do not apply to the facts of the case.

iii. The Petitioner is entitled for relief since Petitioner’s dealership which is their bread and
butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and nonexistent cause.

iv. Order is passed in favour of the Petitioner in C.C.No.84 of 2009 by the Hon’ble XVI

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally, holding that the Petitioner is not guilty of offences
u/s. 420 IPC and Sec.3 & 7 of E.C. Act and the Petitioner was acquitted u/s. 248(1) Criminal
Procedure Code. This fact was overlooked by the Respondent Corporation at the time of
passing the order impugned dated 21.07.2011.

v. The retail outlet is the only source of the Petitioner and Petitioner’s children’s livelihood and
therefore the dealership should be restored at the earliest and the money cannot compensate
for the loss incurred by the Petitioner since 06.01.2005 and therefore the writ petitions should
be allowed as prayed for.

10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deepak Bhaatacharjee appearing on behalf of the Respondents
mainly puts forth the following submissions:

i. As per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Amritsar Gas Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 533 the Petitioner is entitled for compensation in terms of Sec.14(1)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Petitioner will not be entitled for restoration of
dealership.

ii. The Petitioner did not choose to question the Arbitration Award under the Provisions of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the Award has become final.

iii. The Respondent Corporation has implemented the Award in its true force and hence
Petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief beyond the scope of the Award after invoking the
Arbitration clause and after participating in the Arbitration proceedings and after the Award is
passed.

iv. The Respondent Corporation accepted the Award of the Arbitrator dt.19.03.2010 and paid a
sum of Rs.3,21,317/- under Cheque drawn in favour of the Petitioner but however the
Petitioner returned the said cheque.

v) Though the termination was held to be bad the learned Arbitrator Awarded only
compensation and not restoration of the dealership.

vi) The writ petition is not maintainable after the Award is passed, since entire cause of action
of the writ petition No.29128/2012 arose out of the realm of the contract and it was a
termination of contract which was questioned by the Petitioner before the Sole Arbitrator by
invoking Arbitration clause.

vii) The learned senior counsel on the basis of the aforesaid submissions contended that the
writ petition needs to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

11. Paras 16, 17, 18 of the Award of the Arbitrator dated 19.03.2010 read as under :

“16. Based on my findings in paras 11 to 15 on all the four alleged irregularities by the
Corporation, I am of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the case the
termination of dealership by the Corporation under the relevant Clauses of Dealership
Agreement was unwarranted and hold the termination by the respondent of the claimant’s

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 5 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

dealership of HSD facility located on Corporation owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy
District as illegal and invalid and allow issue No.1 in favour of the Claimant and against the
respondent.

17. The termination has been held to be invalid by me, I accordingly, decide issue No.2 in
favour of the claimant and against the respondent.

18. As regards the relief, in a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of M/s Amritsar Gas v/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (1991(1) SCC 533) wherein it
has been held that if a contract is determinable by its very nature, the only relief that can be
granted is compensation in light of section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The
contract has been terminated under clause 56(a)(i) and (k) of the Agreement.

12. Clause 56(a)(i) and (k) of the Agreement reads as under :

“56. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall be at
liberty to terminate this Agreement forthwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of
the following events, namely:-

(a) If the Dealer shall commit a breach of any of the covenants and stipulations
contained in the Agreement, and fall to remedy such breach

(b) Upon

(i) the death or adjudication as insolvent of the Dealer, if he be an individual.

(k) If the Dealer shall either by himself or by his servants or Agents commit or suffer to
be committed any act which, in the opinion of the General Manager of the Corporation
for the time being in Madras whose decision shall be final, is prejudicial to the interest
or good name of the Corporation or its products; the General Manager shall not be
bound to give reasons for such decision.

13. The learned Arbitrator framed three specific issues on 06.01.2006 after hearing both the parties
which are extracted hereunder :

i. Whether the termination letter by the Respondents to the claimant dealership of HSD facility
located on Corporation’s owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy District and MS facility
located at Madhapur in Ranga Reddy District is legal and valid ? If so to what extent ?

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to seek restoration of dealership agreement dt. 05.05.1998
in respect of HSD facility located on the Corporation owned land at Kompally in Ranga Reddy
District and MS facility located at Madhapur in Ranga Reddy District ?

iii. What relief ?

14. A bare perusal of the Award dated 19.03.2010 paras 16 and 17 clearly indicate a clear
observation in favour of the Petitioner and a categorical finding of the learned Arbitrator that the
termination of dealership by the Corporation under the relevant clauses of dealership agreement
was unwarranted and further the learned Arbitrator held the termination by the Respondent of the

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 6 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

Petitioner’s dealership of HSD facility located on Corporation’s own land at Kompally in Ranga
Reddy District and MS facility located at Madhapur in Ranga Reddy District as illegal and invalid.
The learned Arbitrator not only allowed issue No.1 in favour of the claimant against the Respondent
he also observed at para 17 that having held the termination to be invalid he accordingly decided
issued No.2 in favour of the claimant and against the Respondent, but however, did not grant any
relief of restoration of dealership and granted compensation, referring to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the matter of M/s. Amritsar Gas Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (1991) 1 SCC
533 wherein it has been held that if a contract is determinable by its very nature the only relief that
can be granted is compensation in light of Sec.14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and observed
that owing to the termination being unwarranted and invalid, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach
the appropriate authority as deemed fit for relief. This Court opines that without there being no
violation of any clause of agreement by the Petitioner and the Petitioner being exonerated of all the
allegations leveled against the Petitioner only natural outcome has to be restoration of all benefits
which the Petitioner was deprived of unauthorizedly.

15. In so far as the plea of the Respondents is concerned that the writ petition is not maintainable
for the prayer of restoration of dealership this Court opines that the prayer of the Petitioner for
restoration of dealership is available to the Petitioner only by means of a writ petition as neither a
civil suit is maintainable nor is this remedy available before an Arbitrator appointed in terms of the
Arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

16. This Court opines that the Arbitrator could not grant the relief of restoration of dealership to the
Petitioner though he recorded two clear findings in favour of the Petitioner and held issue No.1 and
2 also in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent herein due to the mandate U/s.14(1) of
the Specific Relief Act.

17. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Others, the judgment reported in
(1991) 1 SCC 533 referred to by the Arbitrator in the Award dt. 19.03.2010 the Supreme Court was
considering a dispute between the parties as arising under a distributorship agreement which
permitted either party to terminate the agreement by 30 days’ notice to the other party without
assigning any reason for the termination. A dispute had arisen between the parties on wrongful
termination of the agreement. The dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal in its
award granted restoration of the distributorship as one of the reliefs to the claimant. This relief
granted by the arbitral Tribunal was challenged by the appellant under Section 34 asserting the
applicability of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act contending that when the arbitral tribunal
having noted that the contract was determinable, it could not have proceeded to grant a relief of
specific performance of the contract. In such context, the Supreme Court held that the contract in
question by its nature was determinable, hence granting the relief of restoration of the
distributorship was contrary to the mandate of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. In
paragraph 12 it was observed thus :-

“12.… … … The finding in the award being that the Distributorship Agreement was revokable
and the same being admittedly for rendering personal service, the relevant provisions of the
Specific Relief Act were automatically attracted. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Specific
Relief Act specifies the contracts which cannot be specifically enforced, one of which is ‘a
contract which is in its nature determinable’. In the present case, it is not necessary to refer to
the other clauses of sub section (1) of Section 14, which also may be attracted in the present

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

case since clause (c) clearly applies on the finding read with reasons given in the award itself
that the contract by its nature is determinable. This being so granting the relief of restoration
of the distributorship even on the finding that the breach was committed by the appellant-
Corporation is contrary to the mandate in Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act and there is
an error of law apparent on the face of the award which is stated to be made according to ‘the
law governing such cases.’ The grant of this relief in the award cannot, therefore, be
sustained.

CONCLUSION :

18. A bare perusal of the order impugned dt. 21.07.2011, SDO/RO/2022 of the Respondent Indian
Oil Corporation clearly indicates that the same is passed hastily without application of mind in a very
cryptic manner without reasons except stating that it will not be in public interest to restore the
dealership though the learned Arbitrator held that the termination is bad in the Award passed. This
Court is of the firm opinion that the Respondent Corporation failed to understand that the Arbitrator
had his own limitations in directing for restoration of dealership with the Petitioner as per the
mandate in Sec.14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and left it open to the Petitioner to persue the
remedy available to the Petitioner very clearly observing and holding the termination of the
dealership of the Petitioner as invalid since the Petitioner had not violated the relevant clauses of
the dealership agreement.

19. The Apex Court in a judgement dt. 20.04.2021, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s.
Radhakrishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh referring to Whrilpool Corporation vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks (reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1) at para 15 observed as under :

“The principles of law which emerge are that

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for
the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions
placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to
the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed
for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there
has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article
226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be
entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for
enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before
invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of
exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 8 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the
nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with.

20. In the present case this Court opines that (i) and (iii) (a) (extracted above) are attracted and
hence the present writ petition is maintainable and the plea of availability of alternative remedy is
unsustainable.

21. This Court opines that the Respondent Corporation rejected the Petitioner’s representation vide
impugned order Ref.No.SDO/RO/2020, dt. 21.07.2011 relying on the same set of earlier allegations
which were already decided as illegal by the Arbitrator with clear findings in favour of the Petitioner
in the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 19.03.2010 in particular para 16 and 17 of the said
Award, totally ignoring the fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case
registered against the Petitioner. This Court also opines that the order impugned dt. 21.07.2011
passed by the 2nd Respondent herein failed to understand the limitations of the Arbitrator in
granting relief of restoration of dealership of the Petitioner as per mandate in Section 14(1) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 inspite of recording clear findings in favour of the Petitioner deciding issue
No.1 and 2 in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent Corporation very clearly
observing that the termination of the dealership by the Corporation under the relevant clauses of
Dealership Agreement was unwarranted and further held the termination itself as invalid.

22. This Court opines that the Respondent Corporation is a State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India is an instrumentality of the State and it is required to act in a fair and a
reasonable manner and its acts and omissions are always liable to be tested on the touch stone of
the tenets referable to Article 14 of Constitution of India.

23. The High Court of Allahabad in its judgement dt. 18.05.2023 passed in Modern Service Station
Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., & Others dealing with an order of termination of dealership as
confirmed by the Appellate Authority directed the Respondents to restore the retail outlet dealership
of the Petitioner forthwith placing reliance on another judgment of Allahabad High Court dated
18.02.2019 passed in Kamal Kant Automobiles & Others vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
& Others and very clearly observed at paras 34, 35 and 36 as under :

Para 34 : In fact for the prayer of restoration of dealership, the only remedy available to the
petitioners is by means of a writ petition as neither a civil suit is maintainable nor is this
remedy available before an arbitrator appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in
the agreement.

Para 35 : Thus, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is maintainable and the
arbitration clause does not provide for an effective and efficacious remedy to the petitioners
for the relief sought in the petition particularly relating to restoration of point No.3.

Para 36 : After holding that the order dated 24.02.2018 is bad in law and liable to be quashed,
the question arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of dealership. There
being no violation of any clause of agreement, no proceedings having culminated in
accordance with law and after being exonerated of all the allegations leveled against the
petitioner only natural outcome has to be restoration of all benefits which the petitioner was

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 9 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

deprived of unauthorisedly.

24. This Court opines that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent Corporation in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., & Another vs. T.Natarajan reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 235 (paras 10, 13, 18, 29 and 30) has no application to the facts of the present case
because in that case the Apex Court held that the administrative decision of the IOCL is based on
reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interference by the
High Court. But in the present case, admittedly the order impugned dt. 21.07.2011 of the 2nd
Respondent vide SDO/RO/2022, clearly indicates that the Corporation took into consideration the
same allegations leveled against the Petitioner which were held to be invalid in the Award passed by
the Arbitrator dt. 19.03.2010 and it was unilaterally decided that it will not be in public interest to
restore the dealership though the Arbitrator held that the termination is bad in the Award passed.

25. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2022) 4 SCC 463 in Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., Vs. Sri Ganesh Petroleum Rajguru Nagar (para 41)relied upon by the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Corporation is concerned, this Court opines that the
same is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that in the said case the
challenge is with regard to the Award passed by the Arbitrator itself. In the present case the
Petitioner is not aggrieved by the Award dt. 19.03.2010 passed by the Arbitrator and the Petitioner
very well understands that the Arbitrator passed the said Award as per the mandate in Sec.14(1) of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as permissible under law and the relief prayed for in the present writ
petition pertains to the decision of the Respondent Corporation in rejecting the Petitioner’s
representation for restoration of dealership which is an independent cause of action and the
Respondent Corporation having had the bounden duty to take a decision based on reasons involving
no arbitrariness of any nature therein but in the present case admittedly the Respondent
Corporation failed to act in a fair and reasonable manner and in fact acted arbitrarily effecting
Petitioner’s right to livelihood on a same set of allegations which were held to be invalid in the
Award passed by the Arbitrator dt. 19.03.2010.

26. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the discussion arrived
at as above W.P.No.12345 of 2011 is allowed and the Respondent Corporation is directed to consider
the case of the Petitioner for restoration of the retail outlets of the Petitioner situated at Kompally
and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District and the impugned orders in W.P.No.29128 of 2012 is allowed
as well and the impugned order SDO/RO/2022, dated 21.07.2011 of the 2nd Respondent is set aside
including termination order dt. 06.01.2005 passed by the Respondents and the Respondent
Corporation is directed to reconsider the representations dated 05.05.2010, 10.07.2010 and
06.08.2010, of the Petitioner seeking restoration of the retail outlets of the Petitioner situated at
Kompally and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order duly considering the observations made in particular at para 23 and also the
discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above in the present judgment, in accordance to law in
conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to
the Petitioner and duly communicate the decision to the Petitioner. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 10 of 11 Printed for:

 IBC Laws® | www.ibclaw.in

SUREPALLI NANDA, J

----

–––

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this document including case-
summary/brief about the decision/ add. info/headnote/ judgment/order/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable
in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or
advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this document. The authenticity of this text must be verified
from the original source. Read more here.

Print Date: August 19, 2025 Page 11 of 11 Printed for: